BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions >> Ablaise Ltd v Nettec Plc & Anor [2003] EWHC 3121 (Ch) (30 October 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2003/3121.html Cite as: [2003] EWHC 3121 (Ch) |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
CHANCERY DIVISION
PATENTS COURT
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
ABLAISE LIMITED |
Claimant |
|
- and - |
||
NETTEC PLC & Anor. |
Defendants |
____________________
Official Shorthand Writers and Tape Transcribers
Quality House, Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HP
Tel: 020 7831 5627 Fax: 020 7831 7737
on behalf of the Claimant.
MR. R. MEADE (instructed by DLA) appeared on behalf of the Defendants.
Hearing date: 30th October 2003
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Laddie:
"6. Before the court refuses to order security on the ground that it would unfairly stifle a valid claim, the court must be satisfied that, in all the circumstances, it is probable that the claim would be stifled. There may be cases where this can properly be inferred without direct evidence (see Trident International Freight Services Ltd v. Manchester Ship Canal Co [1990] BCLC 263. In the Trident case there was evidence to show that the company was no longer trading, and that it had previously received support from another company which was a creditor of the plaintiff company and therefore had an interest in the plaintiff's claim continuing; but the judge in that case did not think, on the evidence, that the company could be relied upon to provide further assistance to the plaintiff, and that was a finding which, this court held, could not be challenged on appeal.
However, the court should consider not only whether the plaintiff company can provide security out of its own resources to continue the litigation, but also whether it can raise the amount needed from its directors, shareholders or other backers or interested persons. As this is likely to be peculiarly within the knowledge of the plaintiff company, it is for the plaintiff to satisfy the court that it will be prevented by an order for security from continuing the litigation (see Flender Werft AG v Aegean Maritime Ltd [1990] 2 Lloyd's Rep 27." (p 540)
"Bernstein, who owns around 16% of the company, has earned around £10,000 in the last six months."
"The defendants claim that I have earned around £844,000 in the three years 2000 to 2002. This is probably roughly correct. This amounts to perhaps £475,000 after tax..."